Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Arminius and Free Will

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/28/2001 4:49 PM (GMT -6)

Message Go To Page 2 >>

TGB

04/04/01 4:51 AM

Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-

I feel like I’m hoggin things here. Maybe I should create a second ID so I can post without seeming so!

I’m interested in Arminius’ understanding of free will in the unregenerate. You guys are way beyond me on this. Let’s throw in the third and fourth articles of the Remonstrants as the background:

3. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good--nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God.

4. That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit.
How does libertarian free will (i.e. power to the contrary) not also mean men are, apart from grace, able to make all the right choices and so not need saving grace? In what sense do we possess libertarian free will if our wills at birth are invariably biased (entrenched, whatever) toward evil so as to make our actually sinning inevitable? Putting outside influences aside, do we at birth possess the ability to choose rightly, such that one could conceivably not stand in need of saving grace?

What’s the difference between libertarian free will and Pelagianism?

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

writerdad

04/04/01 11:17 AM

RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom: my own view is that while man could, idealistically make all the choices to be perfect, practically, he never will, given the amount of choices he must make and the state of the world around him. The nature of man is the big part, but man retains the free will God has given him, as well as the image of God in him. As such, I reject the notion of calvinism as oversimplifying that man can do no good. I know of those who have chosen, late in life, to turn from alcohol, or to suddenly try their best to reconcil with those they have hurt. If we were determined, such things would be out of character, particularly after a lifetime of evil character building.
I reserve the right not to comment on Pelagianism because it has been a while and I need someone to jog my memory as to what it is (I keep remember how bad it is, but that is because of a reformed friend who kept calling me it...) John 17:3 Harold

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/04/01 11:55 AM

RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Harold-

Here’s a piece of a conversation I’m having with a friend. He writes:

Tom, believe me, the OV isn't Arminian. J. Arminius himself wrote, "In this state (i.e., fallen) the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost." Arminians know that all are born in sin, and they link prevenient grace with the preaching of the Word to unregenerate wills dead and enslaved to sin. It is the Gospel, most biblical Arminians I personally know would say, that is the power of salvation. The Spirit, through the preached Word, illuminates the truth and gives the sinner opportunity to chose or reject God's grace. Not one Arminian I know would say that all men are born with their wills able to choose life or death, the "true good." They would never say, as a Semi-Pelagian would say, that all men can or cannot obey God according to their free will, as any Arminian will tell you man is born with a corrupted will. This is EXACTLY what makes the OV Pelagian, in my opinion.
Is my friend alone in understanding the OV to be Pelagian? I mean, have others leveled this accusation?

Here's another piece of J. Arminius:

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.
This does NOT sound like libertarian free will. What's up?

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

GregBoyd

04/04/01 10:36 PM

RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB, I think the articles you cited answer your question. Pelagius believed (or at least Augustine depicted him as believing!) that grace just sort of "assists" us in our walk with God. It's sort of like the helping hands of a parent teaching you to walk -- but eventually you're expected to walk on your own. Arminians -- and Open Theists -- have never held such a clearly unbiblical belief (though someone needs to tell Royce Gruenler that!). While there are undoubtedly differences in emphasis, Arminians and Open Theists have differed from Calvinists only in one crucial respect -- cited in the 4th article above:

We do not hold that the gracious work of the Holy Spirit is Irresistible.

To say we CAN resist the Holy Spirit is NOT to say we can do anything WITHOUT the Holy Spirit.

We have the "power of contrary choice" -- even after the fall -- in the sense that in any given instance we CAN choose good or evil, love over apathy, God over Satan, etc... But because of the fall, it is INEVITABLE that, over the long haul, we shall fall short. Total Depravity has never meant that people are as BAD as they could possibly be, only that we are NEVER as GOOD as we Should Be.

Even after the Fall, and even after the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, without which we would remain hardened to God, we can choose to resist the Holy Spirit.

This, I take it, is the last vestige of "the power of contrary choice."

Sleepy tight
Doc

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

trosie

04/04/01 11:11 PM

RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc:

You said, "Arminians -- and Open Theists -- have never held such a clearly unbiblical belief (though someone needs to tell Royce Gruenler that!). While there are undoubtedly differences in emphasis, Arminians and Open Theists have differed from Calvinists only in one crucial respect..."

I am a bit confused. MAYBE there are other people out in cyberland that will appreciate this question too: what specifically do Arminians believe? This may sound like an elementary question to some,I suppose,but you seem to be associating OV with the Arminians a bit and I don't even know exactly what an Arminian believes? It doesn't have to be lengthy but I would appreciate some enlightenment. I hear the different views talked about often but I have never really fully understood how the three views exactly differ?

Thanks
trosie

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/05/01 12:14 AM

RE: RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie-

Check out: http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/arminian.html
John Wesley answers the questions, "What is an Arminian?"

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

trosie

04/05/01 10:14 AM

RE: RE: RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Tom,

I went to the site you gave and it was helpful. I wasn't sure if I had a clear idea what the Arminian view and Calvin view was exactly --I felt like I might have an idea but wasn't sure. The site helped a lot!

Thanks,
trosie

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/05/01 11:57 AM

Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc and the whole world-

First, I apologize to everyone for the length. I promise to keep ‘em down from now on. Really!

Actually I’m not sleeping too well this week. I really like the thread on Jesus and free will, but since I’m basically with you on that Doc (I think!), I want to pull out and pursue this. It was the thread on Jesus and free will in fact that sent me back to seeking to understand something I’ve NEVER understood, and that is the relationship between inherited depravity and moral accountability. To ME these two things are as compatible as “Compatibilism” (i.e. “unconditionally predetermined choices” for which we are “morally responsible”), that is, not compatible at all. I have NEVER settled comfortably into ANY view on the relationship between free will and the effects of Adam’s sin. If somebody asked me what I believed regarding it I’d have to say, “Honestly, I don’t know.” Reading Rom. 5.12-21 is like reading Sanskrit. I’m ashamed to say so.

Here’s something really scary. If the church had not universally branded Pelagius a heretic, and if I wasn’t sure I’D be branded a heretic and lose my income, I do believe I’d be a serious candidate for Pelagianism (IF I could get to his view without having to go through Augustine). I say that for two related reasons: 1) We don’t have anything from Pelagius’ own hand to read so as to make OUR OWN objective judgments of his theology. All we have to judge his view by is what his opponents said about him, which leads to 2) the question of how accurate and objective Augustine’s articulation of Pelagius’ view really was. I mean, if all we had to read on the OV was what opponents of the OV had to say about it (i.e. Gruenler!), we’d a branded Doc a heretic some time ago! I’m simply not convinced that the same sort of thing hasn’t happened with Pelagius. No doubt Augustine was more careful than most of those I talk to about the OV (at least I’ll give HIM the benefit of the doubt!), but Augustine was passionately opinionated about everything (so it seems). Do we have a sufficiently fair and objective articulation of Pelagius’ views in Augustine? We’ll never know will we?

Anyhow…Doc,

To say we CAN resist the Holy Spirit is NOT to say we can do anything WITHOUT the Holy Spirit.
Obviously. But is saying we are born with the power of contrary choice the same as saying there exists no reason IN OUR CONSTITUTIONS that rules out our making righteous choices 100% of the time? Is the fact that we all universally do NOT make righteous choices 100% of the time attributable ultimately to what we are BY BIRTH (i.e. nature, i.e. inherited depravity, i.e. constitution)?

We have the "power of contrary choice" -- even after the fall -- in the sense that in any given instance we CAN choose good or evil, love over apathy, God over Satan, etc[italics mine]... But because of the fall, it is INEVITABLE that, over the long haul, we shall fall short.
I don’t get it. What I think I just read is:

SINCE THE FALL we CAN choose good over evil in ANY given instance, but
BECAUSE OF THE FALL we will not choose good over evil in EVERY given instance (i.e. our will is causally bound by an inherited constitution making it INEVITABLE that we will choose evil SOME of the time).
Now, it actually DOES make sense to me to say we CAN choose good over evil and also that we will INEVITABLY sin IF WE ATTRIBUTE THE INEVITABILITY TO THE UNIVERSAL INFLUENCE OF FALLEN HUMAN SOCIETY. This is the same as saying each man is his own Adam, he’s born with a clean slate, but given the sinful influences of our world he’ll wind up sinning at some point (circumstantial inevitability). BUT-- if we attribute the inevitability to INHERITED “whatever,” (constitutional inevitability) then it makes no sense to say we CAN choose good in any given instance. I don’t have a problem believing Adam’s sin infected human nature and made our actually sinning a necessity. I only have a problem understanding how God holds us morally accountable for such acts.

Total Depravity has never meant that people are as BAD as they could possibly be, only that we are NEVER as GOOD as we Should Be.
But God doesn’t judge us for being as bad as we possibly could be. He judges us for not being as good as we should be.

In any event, you do attribute the inevitability of every individual’s sinning at some point in her life (i.e., her NEVER being as good as she should be) to what she is by NATURE. Fine. But then what can “power to the contrary” possibly mean, and what practical value can it have for rendering God’s judgment of us JUST (which is the very reason we insist on it against Calvinism)?

Even after the Fall, and even after the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, without which we would remain hardened to God, we can choose to resist the Holy Spirit.
But could we have chosen to resist EVIL in every instance (the logical flip side of power to the contrary)? I think you’ve clearly admitted that we cannot, the reason being “total depravity.”

This, I take it, is the last vestige of "the power of contrary choice."
Verstige? We only have a vestige of libertarian free will? Aggghhhh! I’m sure the problem is in MY understanding, Doc. I am admittedly not versed that well in this stuff. Please forgive my incessant questioning. But it seems to me you are limiting the exercise of libertarian free will (i.e. power to the contrary) in the following way: We can say “No” ALL the time to God’s grace (contra Calvin), but we cannot say “No” ALL THE TIME to sin (with Calvin). But it’s on the side of saying “No” TO SIN where we need to maintain libertarian free will in order to establish God’s judgment as just.

If I’m not way off, doesn’t this view of libertarian free will suffer from the same objections OVers make regarding compatibilistic free will, namely, that it undermines moral responsibility? You believe that we’ll sin (never mind that we’ll never sin as MUCH as we COULD) inevitably as the result of a nature we’ve inherited (i.e. a nature we didn’t choose). But you also believe we’re morally responsible for sins this nature’s volition chooses. How is this not as incompatible as the belief that God unconditionally predetermines our every choice and also holds us morally accountable for those choices?

I’m wondering if the only logically consistent alternative to Calvin’s denial of power to the contrary is…Pelagian free will, i.e. REAL free will, at birth, by nature, the responsibility for the evil use of which rests from beginning to end in the conscious exercise of our volition, period. Pelagian sin, it seems to me, is far more black-hearted and criminal than sin that follows necessarily from a nature I inherited. Wouldn’t you agree?

Bring the stretcher in and carry me off.

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

pneumatika

04/05/01 3:00 PM

Oversimplification?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd,

You said:

quote:
Arminians and Open Theists have differed from Calvinists only in one crucial respect -- cited in the 4th article above: We do not hold that the gracious work of the Holy Spirit is Irresistible.

Pardon me for saying so, but I believe you have grossly oversimplified this debate. The crucial issue is not irresistable grace, but predestination.

If I understand correctly what a compatabalist is, they too have problems with the Reformed understanding of irresistable grace. I noticed that you did not mention compatabalists, so is it possible that you were referring only to Reformed Calvinists?

--that Pneumatika guy

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

RevivalTheology

04/05/01 6:53 PM

RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for reference sake, I invite you to take a look at the article on Pelagius, Pelagius: To Demetrias at the RTR website. This is a very well researched article. As a very brief introduction, you might read my own article, The Pelagian "Boogie Man". As to the issue of inherited moral nature, you might wish to check out Are Men Born Sinners? by A. T. Overstreet.

In the Lamb

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

writerdad

04/06/01 12:15 AM

RE: RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revival, you are the man! Always giving me more to read and ponder. Thanks!

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

writerdad

04/06/01 12:27 AM

RE: RE: RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revival: since your sight deals in a lot of Finney's works, perhaps you may answer a question. A reformed friend of mine once told me that he didn't even believe Finney was saved. He said it had to deal mainly with how Finney viewed the atonement. Would you, per chance, have a reason why a reformed person would respond to Finney in that way? I never had a chance to ask him exactly why and was wondering if you might have a clue. Thanks John 17:3 Harold

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

RevivalTheology

04/06/01 7:13 AM

RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are most welcome, Writerdad. I only pass on what I have been the recipient of. "Freely ye receive, so freely give"!!

In the Lamb

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

RevivalTheology

04/06/01 7:05 AM

RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, Finney is the arch heretic to many of our Reformed brethren, mainly because he finished the reinterpretation of Reformed Theology begun by the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Hopkins and Nathaniel Taylor (ok, there were others as well). Also, Finney's view of the Atonement was "governmental" rather than penal/satisfaction. (For a brief survey of various historical views of the atonement see here). And, just for you Writerdad!, you can see a whole lot more resources on the Atonement at the RTR website.

The Governmental view was once considered the Methodist view of the atonement and there is a good essay there by the 19th Century Methodist theologian John Miley. Another essay by Kenneth Grider explores an expansion of the Governmental view, specifically along the lines of the Christus Victor view, which might be of special interest.
In the Lamb

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

writerdad

04/07/01 1:00 AM

RE: RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the infor...again. The issue of sinful nature and being "born" into the sin of Adam has always stuck me as unfair, something I've struggled with because most Christians make it part of being a Christian. Yet the question has plagued me: how can one be responsible for another's sin? Ezekial makes it clear (I forget where) that we are responsible for our own sin. Plus, how can we be held unaccountable if we did not start off perfect like Adam? David Smith has a good book on the subject, "With Willful Intent," which goes through the history of how the Christian church has viewed sin. He shows in one part that the doctrine of original sin came about in part because of Augustine's misinterpretion of Romans 5. Anyway, thanks again for the material. John 17:3 Harold

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

RevivalTheology

04/07/01 8:48 AM

RE: RE: RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No prob, writerdad. I hadn't heard of that book, I'm going to look into it.

(Watch out, though, you're opening yourself up to the charge of Pelagianism, the ultimate slur of the Reformed! )

In the Lamb

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/07/01 12:36 PM

RE: RE: RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harold-

Can you pass on the bibliographic info to David Smith's book?

Thanks,
Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

writerdad

04/08/01 1:05 AM

RE: RE: RE: RE: Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure thing, Tom: published by Victor books, it is divided into three main parts, A Historical Theology of Sin, with includes church fathers, classical Catholic period, reformers, latter protestantism and contempary views, A Biblical Theology of sin, Old testament, Prophetic and New Testamentm and finally, A Systematic Theology of sin. The historical part is alone worth the book. I like it because it gives a good overall view of how sin has been preceived and how sin has been viewed as being transmitted. I highly recommended it. The cool thing was (I love when I find a book cheap and it ends up being a great book!) I got it while ordering from Christian book distributers (www.christianbook.com) and I was actually ordering a book on Arminius (which, by the way, a reformed friend borrowed and NEVER gave back...and I no longer no where he is...by I digress), and I saw it for like 3 bucks and I thought, literally, what the hell...and I actually never read the other book, but this one turned out to really open my eyes...thanks for reading my ramblings, by the way. Oh, revival, like both the articles on Pelguis (mispelled, I know)...I'm gonna read that book you mentioned on original sin...

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/08/01 11:10 AM

OK, so I'll respond to my own post!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm singing those "Double-post Blues"

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

TGB

04/08/01 11:07 AM

OK, so I'll respond to my own post!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom-

Your post blew me away! I thought that libertarian free will meant "the will is the final arbiter in all choices." And I thought that I could maintain this while rejecting BOTH Calvin's compatibilistic free will and Pelagianism. Now this middle ground doesn't seem possible. Thanks for pointing this out. Now all I have to do is choose between being a Calvinist or a Pelagian.

Yours truly,
Tom

Message Go To Page 2 >>

TGB

04/04/01 4:51 AM

Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-

I feel like I’m hoggin things here. Maybe I should create a second ID so I can post without seeming so!

I’m interested in Arminius’ understanding of free will in the unregenerate. You guys are way beyond me on this. Let’s throw in the third and fourth articles of the Remonstrants as the background:

3. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good--nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God.

4. That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit.
How does libertarian free will (i.e. power to the contrary) not also mean men are, apart from grace, able to make all the right choices and so not need saving grace? In what sense do we possess libertarian free will if our wills at birth are invariably biased (entrenched, whatever) toward evil so as to make our actually sinning inevitable? Putting outside influences aside, do we at birth possess the ability to choose rightly, such that one could conceivably not stand in need of saving grace?

What’s the difference between libertarian free will and Pelagianism?

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

writerdad

04/04/01 11:17 AM

RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom: my own view is that while man could, idealistically make all the choices to be perfect, practically, he never will, given the amount of choices he must make and the state of the world around him. The nature of man is the big part, but man retains the free will God has given him, as well as the image of God in him. As such, I reject the notion of calvinism as oversimplifying that man can do no good. I know of those who have chosen, late in life, to turn from alcohol, or to suddenly try their best to reconcil with those they have hurt. If we were determined, such things would be out of character, particularly after a lifetime of evil character building.
I reserve the right not to comment on Pelagianism because it has been a while and I need someone to jog my memory as to what it is (I keep remember how bad it is, but that is because of a reformed friend who kept calling me it...) John 17:3 Harold

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/04/01 11:55 AM

RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Harold-

Here’s a piece of a conversation I’m having with a friend. He writes:

Tom, believe me, the OV isn't Arminian. J. Arminius himself wrote, "In this state (i.e., fallen) the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost." Arminians know that all are born in sin, and they link prevenient grace with the preaching of the Word to unregenerate wills dead and enslaved to sin. It is the Gospel, most biblical Arminians I personally know would say, that is the power of salvation. The Spirit, through the preached Word, illuminates the truth and gives the sinner opportunity to chose or reject God's grace. Not one Arminian I know would say that all men are born with their wills able to choose life or death, the "true good." They would never say, as a Semi-Pelagian would say, that all men can or cannot obey God according to their free will, as any Arminian will tell you man is born with a corrupted will. This is EXACTLY what makes the OV Pelagian, in my opinion.
Is my friend alone in understanding the OV to be Pelagian? I mean, have others leveled this accusation?

Here's another piece of J. Arminius:

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.
This does NOT sound like libertarian free will. What's up?

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

GregBoyd

04/04/01 10:36 PM

RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB, I think the articles you cited answer your question. Pelagius believed (or at least Augustine depicted him as believing!) that grace just sort of "assists" us in our walk with God. It's sort of like the helping hands of a parent teaching you to walk -- but eventually you're expected to walk on your own. Arminians -- and Open Theists -- have never held such a clearly unbiblical belief (though someone needs to tell Royce Gruenler that!). While there are undoubtedly differences in emphasis, Arminians and Open Theists have differed from Calvinists only in one crucial respect -- cited in the 4th article above:

We do not hold that the gracious work of the Holy Spirit is Irresistible.

To say we CAN resist the Holy Spirit is NOT to say we can do anything WITHOUT the Holy Spirit.

We have the "power of contrary choice" -- even after the fall -- in the sense that in any given instance we CAN choose good or evil, love over apathy, God over Satan, etc... But because of the fall, it is INEVITABLE that, over the long haul, we shall fall short. Total Depravity has never meant that people are as BAD as they could possibly be, only that we are NEVER as GOOD as we Should Be.

Even after the Fall, and even after the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, without which we would remain hardened to God, we can choose to resist the Holy Spirit.

This, I take it, is the last vestige of "the power of contrary choice."

Sleepy tight
Doc

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

trosie

04/04/01 11:11 PM

RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc:

You said, "Arminians -- and Open Theists -- have never held such a clearly unbiblical belief (though someone needs to tell Royce Gruenler that!). While there are undoubtedly differences in emphasis, Arminians and Open Theists have differed from Calvinists only in one crucial respect..."

I am a bit confused. MAYBE there are other people out in cyberland that will appreciate this question too: what specifically do Arminians believe? This may sound like an elementary question to some,I suppose,but you seem to be associating OV with the Arminians a bit and I don't even know exactly what an Arminian believes? It doesn't have to be lengthy but I would appreciate some enlightenment. I hear the different views talked about often but I have never really fully understood how the three views exactly differ?

Thanks
trosie

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/05/01 12:14 AM

RE: RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie-

Check out: http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/arminian.html
John Wesley answers the questions, "What is an Arminian?"

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

trosie

04/05/01 10:14 AM

RE: RE: RE: RE: Arminius and Free Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Tom,

I went to the site you gave and it was helpful. I wasn't sure if I had a clear idea what the Arminian view and Calvin view was exactly --I felt like I might have an idea but wasn't sure. The site helped a lot!

Thanks,
trosie

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

TGB

04/05/01 11:57 AM

Bring me a stretcher and and some smelling salts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc and the whole world-

First, I apologize to everyone for the length. I promise to keep ‘em down from now on. Really!

Actually I’m not sleeping too well this week. I really like the thread on Jesus and free will, but since I’m basically with you on that Doc (I think!), I want to pull out and pursue this. It was the thread on Jesus and free will in fact that sent me back to seeking to understand something I’ve NEVER understood, and that is the relationship between inherited depravity and moral accountability. To ME these two things are as compatible as “Compatibilism” (i.e. “unconditionally predetermined choices” for which we are “morally responsible”), that is, not compatible at all. I have NEVER settled comfortably into ANY view on the relationship between free will and the effects of Adam’s sin. If somebody asked me what I believed regarding it I’d have to say, “Honestly, I don’t know.” Reading Rom. 5.12-21 is like reading Sanskrit. I’m ashamed to say so.

Here’s something really scary. If the church had not universally branded Pelagius a heretic, and if I wasn’t sure I’D be branded a heretic and lose my income, I do believe I’d be a serious candidate for Pelagianism (IF I could get to his view without having to go through Augustine). I say that for two related reasons: 1) We don’t have anything from Pelagius’ own hand to read so as to make OUR OWN objective judgments of his theology. All we have to judge his view by is what his opponents said about him, which leads to 2) the question of how accurate and objective Augustine’s articulation of Pelagius’ view really was. I mean, if all we had to read on the OV was what opponents of the OV had to say about it (i.e. Gruenler!), we’d a branded Doc a heretic some time ago! I’m simply not convinced that the same sort of thing hasn’t happened with Pelagius. No doubt Augustine was more careful than most of those I talk to about the OV (at least I’ll give HIM the benefit of the doubt!), but Augustine was passionately opinionated about everything (so it seems). Do we have a sufficiently fair and objective articulation of Pelagius’ views in Augustine? We’ll never know will we?

Anyhow…Doc,

To say we CAN resist the Holy Spirit is NOT to say we can do anything WITHOUT the Holy Spirit.
Obviously. But is saying we are born with the power of contrary choice the same as saying there exists no reason IN OUR CONSTITUTIONS that rules out our making righteous choices 100% of the time? Is the fact that we all universally do NOT make righteous choices 100% of the time attributable ultimately to what we are BY BIRTH (i.e. nature, i.e. inherited depravity, i.e. constitution)?

We have the "power of contrary choice" -- even after the fall -- in the sense that in any given instance we CAN choose good or evil, love over apathy, God over Satan, etc[italics mine]... But because of the fall, it is INEVITABLE that, over the long haul, we shall fall short.
I don’t get it. What I think I just read is:

SINCE THE FALL we CAN choose good over evil in ANY given instance, but
BECAUSE OF THE FALL we will not choose good over evil in EVERY given instance (i.e. our will is causally bound by an inherited constitution making it INEVITABLE that we will choose evil SOME of the time).
Now, it actually DOES make sense to me to say we CAN choose good over evil and also that we will INEVITABLY sin IF WE ATTRIBUTE THE INEVITABILITY TO THE UNIVERSAL INFLUENCE OF FALLEN HUMAN SOCIETY. This is the same as saying each man is his own Adam, he’s born with a clean slate, but given the sinful influences of our world he’ll wind up sinning at some point (circumstantial inevitability). BUT-- if we attribute the inevitability to INHERITED “whatever,” (constitutional inevitability) then it makes no sense to say we CAN choose good in any given instance. I don’t have a problem believing Adam’s sin infected human nature and made our actually sinning a necessity. I only have a problem understanding how God holds us morally accountable for such acts.

Total Depravity has never meant that people are as BAD as they could possibly be, only that we are NEVER as GOOD as we Should Be.
But God doesn’t judge us for being as bad as we possibly could be. He judges us for not being as good as we should be.

In any event, you do attribute the inevitability of every individual’s sinning at some point in her life (i.e., her NEVER being as good as she should be) to what she is by NATURE. Fine. But then what can “power to the contrary” possibly mean, and what practical value can it have for rendering God’s judgment of us JUST (which is the very reason we insist on it against Calvinism)?

Even after the Fall, and even after the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, without which we would remain hardened to God, we can choose to resist the Holy Spirit.
But could we have chosen to resist EVIL in every instance (the logical flip side of power to the contrary)? I think you’ve clearly admitted that we cannot, the reason being “total depravity.”

This, I take it, is the last vestige of "the power of contrary choice."
Verstige? We only have a vestige of libertarian free will? Aggghhhh! I’m sure the problem is in MY understanding, Doc. I am admittedly not versed that well in this stuff. Please forgive my incessant questioning. But it seems to me you are limiting the exercise of libertarian free will (i.e. power to the contrary) in the following way: We can say “No” ALL the time to God’s grace (contra Calvin), but we cannot say “No” ALL THE TIME to sin (with Calvin). But it’s on the side of saying “No” TO SIN where we need to maintain libertarian free will in order to establish God’s judgment as just.

If I’m not way off, doesn’t this view of libertarian free will suffer from the same objections OVers make regarding compatibilistic free will, namely, that it undermines moral responsibility? You believe that we’ll sin (never mind that we’ll never sin as MUCH as we COULD) inevitably as the result of a nature we’ve inherited (i.e. a nature we didn’t choose). But you also believe we’re morally responsible for sins this nature’s volition chooses. How is this not as incompatible as the belief that God unconditionally predetermines our every choice and also holds us morally accountable for those choices?

I’m wondering if the only logically consistent alternative to Calvin’s denial of power to the contrary is…Pelagian free will, i.e. REAL free will, at birth, by nature, the responsibility for the evil use of which rests from beginning to end in the conscious exercise of our volition, period. Pelagian sin, it seems to me, is far more black-hearted and criminal than sin that follows necessarily from a nature I inherited. Wouldn’t you agree?

Bring the stretcher in and carry me off.

Tom

Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site

pneumatika

04/05/01 3:00 PM

Oversimplification?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd,

You said:

quote:
Arminians and Open Theists have differed from Calvinists only in one crucial respect -- cited in the 4th article above: We do not hold that the gracious work of the Holy Spirit is Irresistible.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:57 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual